cupure logo
trump100trumps100 daysdayslettershereslettercanadatime

The supreme court didn’t rule on the definition of ‘a woman’ – this is what its judgment does mean | Sam Fowles

The judges had to interpret the law as set down by parliament. But it must be remembered this is not an abstract debate; it concerns real peopleSam Fowles is a barristerThe supreme court, headlines say, has ruled on “the definition of a woman”. Except it hasn’t. As the court says, in paragraph 2 of its judgment: “It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the [Equality Act] 2010.”So what is the court’s decision actually about? In 2018, the Scottish parliament passed a law encouraging public boards to have 50% representation for women. For Women Scotland, a group that describes itself as “working to protect women’s rights”, asked the court to strike the law down because it included transgender women. There followed a series of legal challenges which eventually made their way to the supreme court.Sam Fowles is a barrister, author and broadcasterDo you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. Continue reading...

Comments

Opinions